Posted on 04/28/2022 10:47:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Am I wrong in thinking this contradicts other studies? I no longer trust a lot of studies regarding COVID because they are (IMHO) set up to achieve a result agreed upon beforehand.
based on a prediction, none the less
We have no reason to believe in the modeling of anything because of their poor track record on Covid and climate.
Are they factoring in adverse reactions and deaths from the shots? No.
“The study by University of Toronto researchers used computer modeling....”
Says it all.
From the article ““At the end of the day, this is about collective action....”
Collective? Well, there’s your socialist trigger word. This “study” is such BS. Looks like another “MD” publication I will ignore.
Bullfauci.
Complete and utter bullfauci.
Modeling.
Moderna stock, upward and onward!
Total BS. Here’s the ‘money shot’ & the reason why they came to the conclusions they did ... support for the narrative that limits/takes away personal freedom:
“Fisman told Forbes the findings support the idea of mandates, vaccine passports and other legal measures to limit unvaccinated people’s access to public spaces.’
Probably not paid for by Big Pharma. My MD prescribes a dozen nutritional supplements to keep me healthy if WebMD says they are useful. I’m very old and take only two little bp pills, Big Pharma hates me and docs like him. Because I take everything now known to keep immune system strong and have every morning for the last 50 years, my MD said I didn’t need vax.
I don’t really understand this article. Probably true for people who do not have strong immune systems from vitamins and not overeating. Quite a hunk of the population.
There is no data because this is a model only. This is fraudulent disinformation and you could be banned from a platform based on the kind of society you are advocating by not posting this with a hurl alert.
“All based on a model with unsupported assumptions.”
Computer models are not magic. When done properly, they’re a best guess, translated into computer code. More often lately, they’ve become opinions or outright fiction, translated into computer code. Complete with fancy graphs and tables.
The highest rates of infections, hospitalizations and deaths are in countries with the highest vaccination rates. This article makes no sense.
For the final 'nail in the coffin that is the paper by Fisman, et al., let’s make only one adjustment to their model. First, kudos to the authors for making their mathematical model available. Seeing the epidemiological models being used to inform COVID-19 policies has been a rarity over the past couple of years. Fisman did not make his model available in his previous paper (that was also published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal), nor for any models that he was involved with when serving on the Science Table. Unfortunately, the current disclosed model highlights exactly why nobody should ever trust any epidemiological model that has not been fully disclosed.
I encourage everyone to read this analysis of the study to see just how awful it is.
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/fiction-disguised-as-science-to-promote?s=r
The scientists weren’t logged in when they came up with this study.
“Study says.” Two of the most misused words in the language.
Hi.
Don’t see the data.
What tyle of study/methodology
Was it double blind
Control group
Sample size
Thanks
5.56mm
No, this is wrong. The fake vaxxed shed spike proteins and endanger the unfakeVaxxed. They make healthy people without undamaged immune systems damaged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.